This is an aside titled 'Origin of the Aughts' dated 12/30/09

Rebecca Mead doesn’t like what we’re calling the last decade. “Arguably, a grudging agreement has been reached on calling the decade ‘the aughts,’ but that unfortunate term is rooted in a linguistic error. The use of ‘aught’ to mean ‘nothing,’ ‘zero,’ or ‘cipher’ is a nineteenth-century corruption of the word ‘naught,’ which actually does mean nothing, and which, as in the phrase ‘all for naught,’ is still in current usage. Meanwhile, the adoption of ‘the aughts’ as the decade’s name only accelerates the almost complete obsolescence of the actual English word “aught,” a concise and poetic near-synonym for ‘anything’ … To call the decade ‘the aughts’ is a compromise that pleases no one, and that has more than a whiff of resigned settling about it.” While I’ll agree there’s something significant in how it takes until the last few months of the decade to decide on a name for itself, “aught” is far less obscure that Mead suggests. Wolfram Alpha is useless for finding out how many high schools perform the Music Man each year, but I’d wager it’s quite a lot… meaning there are thousands and thousands of people out there familiar with its frequent references to building a church in “aught six” or graduating in “aught seven.” It may not be a frequently discussed common cultural reference like Citizen Kane or The Catcher in the Rye, but because The Music Man is so frequently performed, lots of people actually know the script. Maybe you played a townsperson once or your neighbor’s daughter did. (is there’s a theater term for this?) Anyway, I think the “aughts” can be contributed to Prof. Harold Hill, and I wouldn’t be surprised if “oh four” and “oh five” become “aught–” looking back.

Posted by Joanne on Dec. 30, 2009 Tagged: , , ,

blog comments powered by Disqus